Page 3 - Practiced Law News Today : Breaking News, Live Updates & Top Stories | Vimarsana

Students know that the military recruiters were going to be at harvard during that recruiting season and military recruiting went up that year, not down. so you're exactly right, that the supreme court did reject our amicas brief. again, we filed an amicas brief not attacking the constitutionality of the solomon amendment but instead saying that essentially the harvard policy complied with the solomon amendment, the supreme court rejected it 9-0, unanimously. >> but even before that the military said the law was still in effect, harvard had no right to get around it, and they should comply eve...

Treating them as second class citizens, bat giving them equal access because you deeply opposed that policy. why wouldn't you complain to congress and not to the dutiful men and women who put their lives on the line for america every day? >> senator session, you're of course right that the solomon amendment is law, passed by congress >> how much i honored everybody who was associated with the military, on the harvard law school campus. all that i was trying to do, was to ensure that harvard law school could also comply with the anti-discrimination policy, a policy that was meant to protect all...

Military. who might very much want to do that most honorable kind of service that a person can do for her country. >> that's a legitimate concern and people can disagree on that and i respect your view on that, i'm having difficulty with why you would take the steps of treating the military in the second class way to speak to rallies and send out e-mails, and to immediately, without legal basis, because the solomon amendment was never, at any time, not enforced as a matter of law, why would you do all of those things, simply to deny what congress required that they have equal ac as anyone else...

Views? certainly you don't think he was attempting to embarrass you or hurt new that process, do you? >> i love my good friend ron claim, but i guess that people should be allowed to label themselves, and that's -- you know, i don't know what that label means, and so i guess i'm not going to characterize it one way or the other. >> i would just say having looked at your overall record, having considered those two people who know you very well, i think you have to classify you -- i would have to classify you as someone in the theme of the legal progressives. now, one of the things that we want ...

Democratic administrations, and i think -- >> no, but i'm asking do you agree with the characterization that you're a legal progressive? >> senator sessions, i honestly don't know what that label means. i've worked in two democratic administrations, senator graham suggested yesterday, and i think he's right, that you can tell something about me and my political views from that, but as i suggested to you, that my political views are one thing, and -- >> i don't agree with you exactly that you should not be condemned for being a political believer and taking part in the process and having views....